Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jessica Hong

dblp:166/1415 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers
Information retrieval · 100%
Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval › ranking › multi-objective ranking
fair ranking
0.922021
Controlling Fairness and Bias in Dynamic Learning-to-Rank (Extended Abstract) · IJCAI 2021
Controlling Fairness and Bias in Dynamic Learning-to-Rank · SIGIR 2020
Information retrieval › ranking
learning to rank
0.922021
Controlling Fairness and Bias in Dynamic Learning-to-Rank (Extended Abstract) · IJCAI 2021
Controlling Fairness and Bias in Dynamic Learning-to-Rank · SIGIR 2020
Information retrieval
retrieval models and ranking
0.412020
Controlling Fairness and Bias in Dynamic Learning-to-Rank · SIGIR 2020
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.322021
Controlling Fairness and Bias in Dynamic Learning-to-Rank (Extended Abstract) · IJCAI 2021
Controlling Fairness and Bias in Dynamic Learning-to-Rank · SIGIR 2020

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

unbiased estimator · 1.9learning to rank · 1.0online learning · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Controlling Fairness and Bias in Dynamic Learning-to-Rank (Extended Abstract)
abstract
Rankings are the primary interface through which many online platforms match users to items (e.g. news, products, music, video). In these two-sided markets, not only do the users draw utility from the rankings, but the rankings also determine the utility (e.g. exposure, revenue) for the item providers (e.g. publishers, sellers, artists, studios). It has already been noted that myopically optimizing utility to the users -- as done by virtually all learning-to-rank algorithms -- can be unfair to the item providers. We, therefore, present a learning-to-rank approach for explicitly enforcing merit-based fairness guarantees to groups of items (e.g. articles by the same publisher, tracks by the same artist). In particular, we propose a learning algorithm that ensures notions of amortized group fairness, while simultaneously learning the ranking function from implicit feedback data. The algorithm takes the form of a controller that integrates unbiased estimators for both fairness and utility, dynamically adapting both as more data becomes available. In addition to its rigorous theoretical foundation and convergence guarantees, we find empirically that the algorithm is highly practical and robust.
Marco Morik, Ashudeep Singh, Jessica Hong, Thorsten Joachims
IJCAI3
2020 Controlling Fairness and Bias in Dynamic Learning-to-Rank
abstract
Rankings are the primary interface through which many online platforms match users to items (e.g. news, products, music, video). In these two-sided markets, not only the users draw utility from the rankings, but the rankings also determine the utility (e.g. exposure, revenue) for the item providers (e.g. publishers, sellers, artists, studios). It has already been noted that myopically optimizing utility to the users -- as done by virtually all learning-to-rank algorithms -- can be unfair to the item providers. We, therefore, present a learning-to-rank approach for explicitly enforcing merit-based fairness guarantees to groups of items (e.g. articles by the same publisher, tracks by the same artist). In particular, we propose a learning algorithm that ensures notions of amortized group fairness, while simultaneously learning the ranking function from implicit feedback data. The algorithm takes the form of a controller that integrates unbiased estimators for both fairness and utility, dynamically adapting both as more data becomes available. In addition to its rigorous theoretical foundation and convergence guarantees, we find empirically that the algorithm is highly practical and robust.
Marco Morik, Ashudeep Singh, Jessica Hong, Thorsten Joachims
SIGIR3
2019 Bridging Research and Clinical Care: Real-Time ePRO Adverse Event Real-Time Reporting in a Phase II Breast Cancer Study
Adam L. Asare, Smita Asare, Amrita Basu, Sue Dubman, Mitra Rocca, Aheli Chattopadhyay, Jessica Hong, Lisa Weiss, Ruby Singhrao, Amy Wilson, Garry Peterson, Devon McCabe, Jeff Matthews, Cal Collins, Karyn DiGiorgio, Bev Parker, Susie Brain, Diane Heditsian, Laura Esserman, Michelle Melisko
AMIA7
2018 From eSource to OneSource: Process and Quality Improvements in the I-SPY 2 Trial
Aheli Chattopadhyay, Adam L. Asare, Jessica Hong, Thomas P. Bechtold, Michael A. Ibara, Mitra Rocca, Alexander Koorkoff, Karen Kimura, Laura Esserman, Irene S. Dubman
AMIA3